Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Claremont CollegesScholarship @ Claremont
Pomona Senior Theses Pomona Student Scholarship
2012
Get Your Butt Off the Ground!: Consequences ofCigarette Waste and Litter-Reducing MethodsJoyce LeePomona College
This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Pomona Student Scholarship at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Pomona Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please [email protected].
Recommended CitationLee, Joyce, "Get Your Butt Off the Ground!: Consequences of Cigarette Waste and Litter-Reducing Methods" (2012). Pomona SeniorTheses. Paper 44.http://scholarship.claremont.edu/pomona_theses/44
GET YOUR BUTT OFF THE GROUND!:
CONSEQUENCES OF CIGARETTE WASTE AND LITTER-REDUCING METHODS
Joyce Lee
In partial fulfillment of a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Environmental Analysis,
2011-12 academic year, Pomona College, Claremont, California
Reader:
Colin Beck
1
Table of Contents
Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
Chemistry of Cigarettes ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
The Filter Problem
Biodegradable?
Enhancing Degradation Rates
Persistence of Chemicals
Consequences of Cigarette Litter ----------------------------------------------------------------- 9
Toxic Exposure to Marine Life
Toxic Exposure in Children and Landfill Demands
Litter-Reducing Methods ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
Alternatives to Cellulose Acetate Filters
Creative Repurposing
Practical Solutions
Policies and Programs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
Tax and Deposit Programs
Policies in Consideration
Collaboration with Tobacco Industry
Cigarette Butts at Pomona College --------------------------------------------------------------- 20
Background
Methodology
Results and Discussion
Conclusion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38
Appendix ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41
Acknowledgements ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43
Works Cited ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44
2
Introduction
High death rates from lung cancer and other illnesses associated with cigarette smoke
have prompted greater efforts to keep communities informed of the harmful consequences of
tobacco use. The Downey Fresh Air Coalition is one of several groups that are committed to this
effort. The coalition was formed by residents of Downey, CA who wanted their parks and city-
sponsored public events to be smoke-free. In the summer of 2011, I joined the youth coalition as
an intern and participated in tobacco education, council meetings, and cigarette butt clean-ups.
Our efforts were rewarded on November 22, 2011 when the Downey City Council agreed to pass
a law for smoke-free parks and public events.
The final and successful council meeting was a memorable experience, but I also cannot
forget the cigarette butt clean-up we did at Furman Park. Scouring the ground for cigarette butts
in the early hours of the day was tiring but worthwhile; in just two hours, we filled large jars with
used butts. The amount we collected was shocking. We had discussed how cigarette litter can
accumulate and take an incredibly long time to degrade, but actually seeing the overflowing jars
confirmed that cigarette litter is no small issue.
We picked up hundreds of littered cigarette butts, but I wondered what would have
happened to them if they had been left on the ground. Would they have just disappeared under
layers of soil and eventually disintegrate? Would the chemicals in the cigarettes persist and be
potentially toxic? And why do smokers discard their cigarettes on the ground instead of
appropriate ashtrays?
Cigarette butts are rapidly accumulating on our planet and they are not going away fast
enough. About 5.535 trillion commercially manufactured cigarettes were consumed in 1995
(Novotny and Feng 1999). 4.5 trillion filter-tipped cigarettes are deposited annually worldwide
3
(Hager 2010). In the United States, more than 175 million pounds of cigarette butts are discarded
every year. The Keep America Beautiful (KAB) campaign reports that cigarette butts make up
36% of all visible litter (Keep America Beautiful 2009).
Street cleanups have found that cigarette butts comprise of 25% to 50% of all collected
litter from roads and streets (Novotny et al. 2009). Most of these cigarettes were discarded from
moving cars. The cigarette butts travel from cars, to street drains, and finally to streams, rivers,
and oceans. In beach cleanups, cigarette butts are the single most recovered item (Novotny et al.
2009).
Because filters can take years to degrade, littered cigarette butts almost never disappear at
the rate that they are being thrown away. No matter how small they are, 4.5 trillion filter-tipped
cigarettes together equate to a significantly large amount of discarded plastic. Their toxicity
affects children and animals while the costs of municipal waste management rise.
My thesis further examines the biodegradability of filters and its scientific basis,
including ways to enhance degradation rates by chemically manipulating filters. I also discuss
the persistence of cigarette chemicals and their potential toxic effects on children and animals. I
consider other social, economic, and environmental consequences of cigarette filters and
chemicals. Furthermore, I discuss various solutions smokers and non-smokers alike have created
to address the problem of cigarette litter; these methods come from a wide range of artistic,
science-based, and policy-based perspectives.
Finally, my thesis examines this issue in the context of a college campus – Pomona
College in Claremont, CA. I discuss a map showing the number of cigarette litter around
buildings and sidewalks on campus and consider factors that influence the location and high
counts of litter. Finally, I make recommendations for the college based on my findings.
4
Chemistry of Cigarettes
This section explains the problem with cigarette waste with a specific focus on chemical
composition and interaction with the environment. I discuss synthetic cellulose acetate, how it is
manufactured, why cigarette companies make their filters out of this material, its
biodegradability, and ways to enhance its degradation rate. Finally, I discuss the persistence of
chemicals in cigarettes.
The Filter Problem
In the mid 1950s, the United States Surgeon General’s warning that smoking causes lung
cancer alarmed the public as well as cigarette manufacturers. They began to investigate new
designs for filter-tipped cigarettes in hopes that a filter would reduce the harmful health effects
of smoking. Funded by Philip Morris, researchers at the Textile Research Institute in Princeton,
New Jersey began developing different fibers. They found the best one to be synthetic cellulose
acetate because it was easily manufactured for mass production and the cheapest pound for
pound (Harris 2011).
Cellulose acetate is a plastic made of up to 12,000 fibers (Novotny et al. 2009), each one
about 20 μm in diameter (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1989). It is
synthesized by acetylating cellulose, a natural polymer found in wood, with acetic anhydride in
the presence of a catalyst. The reaction produces cellulose acetate flakes, which precipitate out
and dissolve in acetone. Spinning the solution causes the acetone to evaporate, leaving behind
strands of cellulose acetate (Harris 2011). Adding titanium dioxide (TiO2) to the strands
eliminates their sheen and whitens them (Puls et al. 2011). Triacetin, a binding agent, packs the
strands together to create a single filter. Finally, the filters are sometimes wrapped with two
5
layers of paper or rayon, which contain glues or alkali metal salts of organic acids to ensure
continuous burning in a smoked cigarette (Davis 1999).
There are numerous problems with the cellulose acetate filter (Figure 1). Although they
were developed to create safer cigarettes, some studies have correlated its rise with an increase in
cases of aggressive adenocarcinoma cell lung cancer (Novotny et al. 2009; Smith 2011) and
suggest that the filter has little to do with safety. The filter’s fibers can even enter the lungs of
smokers (Novotny et al. 2009). In addition, the consumption waste of filter-tipped cigarettes has
grown astonishingly to an annual amount of about 4.5 trillion in the world every year (Hager
2010).
Figure 1. Components of a Cigarette. Source: http://www.bat.com/group/sites/uk__3mnfen.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO6HHJ9F?opendocument&SKN=1
Biodegradable?
Although researchers have confirmed cellulose acetate to be photodegradable, there is
much debate as to whether it is biodegradable. Biodegradability can be defined as a “microbial
initiated conversion of a substrate in a biologically active environment into carbon dioxide
(aerobically), methane (anaerobically), cell wall material, and other biological products” (Puls et
al. 2011). However, other definitions simply require a minimum rate of degradation (Puls et al.
2011). Numerous studies state that cellulose acetate is not biodegradable, pointing to its
extremely slow rate of degradation (Novotny et al. 2009). However, the scientific community
reports that it is technically biodegradable.
Initially, scientists also did not consider cellulose acetate to be biodegradable based on
early studies that were done with organisms that solely degrade cellulose. But later studies
revealed a crucial step – deacetylation – that instigates degradation. Many microorganisms have
deacetylating acetyl esterase enzymes that can deacetylate cellulose acetate and began to break it
6
down (Puls et al. 2011). Edgar et al. confirmed this when he observed biodegrading cellulose
acetate in compost (Edgar et al. 2001). Thus, cellulose acetate is technically biodegradable,
according to the scientific community.
Regardless of whether we can call filters biodegradable or not, there is no question that
they take a very long time to degrade. Depending on the environmental conditions, filters can
resist degradation and only completely disappear after 10 to 15 years (Greenbutts LLC).
Enhancing Degradation Rates
According to research on cellulose-acetate based materials, a combination of photo and
biodegradation as well as product design enhances degradation. The outdoors environment can
also positively influence the rate (Puls et al. 2011).
Cellulose acetate is photodegradable by UV wavelengths less than 280 nm. UV
wavelengths in sunlight will only go as low as 300 nm at the earth’s surface; cellulose acetate’s
photodegradability is therefore limited. Fortunately, the titanium dioxide (TiO2) used to whiten
filter fibers also functions as a photo oxidation catalyst (Puls et al. 2011). Scientists observed the
diminishing of filters containing TiO2 that were placed on a roof, exposed to sun, wind, and rain
but no soil or standing water; they diminished 10-20% the first year due to photo degradation
(Haynes et al. 1991). An ultrafine version of titanium dioxide shortens the degradation time even
more; filters with 0.7% ultrafine TiO2 diminished 65% in 6 months. Treatment of barium
phosphate also enhances the photo reactivity (Puls et al. 2011).
Increasing the filter’s surface area also quickens degradation. Greater surface area leads
to increased exposure to microorganisms. One method of increasing exposure is to manufacture
cellulose acetate fibers with water soluble additives, such as hydroxypropyl cellulose or starch,
7
which will dissolve away when exposed to water and increase the fibers’ surface area (Puls et al.
2011).
Factors such as moisture level and temperature of the surrounding environment also
affect the degradation of cellulose acetate. Adding a decomposition accelerating agent to filter
fibers may quicken the degradation, but the method is tricky because the cellulose acetate
material must not degrade before it is discarded. A reaction controlling agent that is added with
the decomposition agents can prevent untimely degradation. One patent suggests adding a
hydrolysis causing additive to cigarette filters that will be repressed by a coating but released
when discarded into water (Puls et al. 2011).
Perhaps the best way to enhance degradation would be to change the design of cellulose
acetate products. In the case of cigarette filters, the entanglement of fibers and the triacetin
“glue” that binds them together are serious barriers to the filter’s disintegration. Several patents
suggest changing the fibers’ construction and using different “glues” to increase the rate of
disintegration. One patent uses water soluble polyester polymers as the “glue” that eventually
dissolves in water and releases fibers. Scientists have also suggested making the fibers shorter
and thicker, as well as constructing the filter out of short cut segments. Manufacturers can also
make partial cuts on the filter so that the individual fibers are shorter and less tangled. Designers
suggest that these cut filters, compared to conventional filters, are twice as likely to degrade after
one year (Puls et al. 2011). Scientists have also developed filters that are not made of cellulose
acetate, which is later discussed in “Litter-Reducing Methods” (pg. 11).
Although many patents exist for enhancing filters’ degradations, cigarette companies are
not necessarily implementing these ideas. They must test these ideas for reproducibility and
feasibility in manufacturing. Meanwhile, cigarette butts are being discarded in the environment
8
every day and not degrading at the same rate. Time is running out; cigarette manufacturers or
independent companies must test and implement methods of quickening filter degradation.
Persistence of Chemicals
It is not only the filter that makes cigarettes an environmental problem. Cigarette butts
are a toxic waste due to the persistence of their chemicals and their cumulative effect. Most of
these chemicals come from treatments used in growing tobacco. Heavy metals from soil,
pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides are present in tobacco products (Micevska et
al. 2006; Frank et al. 1987). Unfortunately, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regulates the pesticides used on tobacco crops, but does not look at pesticide residue on tobacco.
Consequently, the USDA has found that some tobacco, both imported and domestic, have
residue that exceeds the amount that is safe to humans and the environment (U.S. Government
Accountability Office 2003).
Processing ingredients such as brightening chemicals on cigarette paper also lends to the
toxicity of cigarettes (Owens 1978; Iskander 1985; Iskander et al. 1986). Smoked cigarettes
contain numerous chemicals, such as ammonia, formaldehyde, butane, acrylonitrile, toluene,
benzene, alkaloid nicotine (Schneider et al. 2011).
These chemical components do not just disappear. Moerman and Potts’ analysis on
metals leached from smoked cigarette litter found a positive correlation between the
concentration of several metals and the soaking time of cigarette butts. They concluded that
cigarette litter is a point source of barium, iron, manganese, and strontium contamination for at
least a month (Moerman and Potts 2011). Cigarettes may seem harmless because of their size,
9
but they are toxic and persistent in our environment. One cigarette may not do much damage, but
trillions will.
From a chemistry perspective, cigarettes involve a complicated network of interactions
between compounds. Enhancing the biodegradability of filters and decreasing overall toxicity of
cigarettes require an extensive knowledge of this network of chemical mechanisms. Cigarette
butts are small in size but are packed with various chemicals that have consequences that
scientists are still trying to understand.
Consequences of Cigarette Litter
The following section describes some of the chemical consequences, specifically for
animals and children who are exposed to the toxic effects of cigarettes. I also discuss financial
consequences in municipal waste management.
Toxic Exposure in Marine Life
Marine life is often at the receiving end of leached chemicals and toxins. Marine animals
may be especially harmed by nicotine, ethylphenol, and other organic compounds in cigarettes
(Micevska et al. 2006). Ethylphenol, which is commonly used to flavor tobacco, can accumulate
to such high levels in aquatic animals that they exceed the concentration in the surrounding
environment (Clark and Bunch 1996).
Researchers at San Diego State University examined the toxic effects of smoked
cigarette butts (smoked filter and tobacco), smoked cigarette filters (no tobacco), and unsmoked
cigarette filters (no tobacco) on topsmelt and fathead minnows (Slaughter et al. 2011).
Surprisingly, all three materials were toxic despite the lack of tobacco in two of them. However,
10
the smoked cigarette butts with leftover tobacco did contribute to toxicity significantly more than
the smoked and unsmoked filters without tobacco. Remnant tobacco, burned or not, almost
always contributes to the cigarette butt’s toxicity. The toxicity of unsmoked cigarette filters
containing no tobacco indicates that chemicals used in manufacturing of filters are harmful even
before the filters absorb chemicals when smoked. Thus, although smoking and the addition of
tobacco increase the toxicity of cigarette filters, they are already toxic to begin with (Slaughter et
al. 2011).
Toxic Exposure in Children and Landfill Demands
Children and toddlers who ingest cigarettes can also be poisoned, but to a much lesser
degree. Children can easily pick up cigarettes and ingest them in places like parks (Novotny et al.
2009). Cases of cigarette ingestion usually involve children who are only a year old or younger.
They are often found chewing the cigarettes (Kubo and Chishiro 2008).
Fortunately, cases of significant toxic poisoning in children are rare (McGee et al. 1996).
Most children who ingest cigarettes do not show any symptoms, according to observations at
poison control centers in both Japan and the U.S. (Kubo 2008; McGee et al. 1996). Symptoms
that do appear are usually vomiting or lethargy, both of which eventually cease (McGee et al.
1996). Children do have to be admitted to a hospital’s emergency department but usually are not
hospitalized (Kubo and Chishiro 2008). Gastric lavage, or stomach pumping, is unnecessary in
most cases (McGee et al. 1996).
Although the consequences of cigarette ingestion for children are not life-threatening, it
is still an unnecessary danger and can be prevented by less cigarette litter in parks and other play
areas.
11
Like other forms of waste, smoked cigarette butts also contribute to greater landfill
demands. In addition, when they are littered, they lead to increased costs of municipalities’ waste
disposal (Novotny et al. 2009).
Thus, a greater presence of cigarette litter means a higher likelihood for poisoning in
children, more exposure to toxicity in marine life, and higher costs of waste management. These
financial, social, and environmental consequences clearly emphasize the need to reduce cigarette
litter.
Litter-Reducing Methods
Scientists, entrepreneurs, and artists around the world have discovered innovative ways to
address the problem of cigarette litter. Some people have chemically manipulated cigarette waste
for creative and applicable purposes. Others have developed citywide programs for recycling
cigarette butts. Some suggest changing the chemical composition of cigarette filters and finding
alternatives to cellulose acetate. In this section, I discuss some of these proposed solutions as
well as the feasibility of their global expansion.
Alternatives to Cellulose Acetate Filters
One approach to combating the negative consequences of cigarette litter is to create
filters with materials other than cellulose acetate. In 2005, UK company Stanelco acquired a
Germany company called Biotec, which makes starch-based polymer products for the
pharmaceutical and food industries (Platt 2006). Their collaboration gave rise to a new food
starch-based filter made out of carbohydrate polymers from potato or rice. Stanelco’s filter
degrades in about 60 days and does not carry the risk of smokers inhaling the filter’s tobacco-
12
coated fibers into their lungs (ENN 2005). The starch-based filter is also much cheaper than the
cellulose acetate kind. Stanelco later hired Rothschild to develop strategies for distributing their
cigarette filter worldwide (Business Wire 2005).
Another company, Greenbutts LLC, has developed a new kind of “all-natural” cigarette
that aims to mitigate the harmful consequences of litter. Their cigarette’s filter degrades faster
than the conventional kind and its tobacco contains no additives or chemicals. In contrast to the
cellulose acetate fibers and triacetin binding agent in conventional cigarettes, Greenbutts’ filters
are made from organic cotton and de-gummed hemp and bound together by wheat flour and
water. Greenbutts can be placed along with seeds in a planter and used to grow a wide variety of
plants. The company promises that the smoking experience will be just as satisfying as smoking
a conventional cigarette due to their pure tobacco flavor. According to co-founder Xavier Van
Osten, Greenbutts is currently working with different cigarette manufacturers and predicts that
their filters will be sold to the public in 2012; the company envisions mass producing their filters
(Greenbutts LLC).
Both of these filter renovations have great potential for decreasing cigarette waste build-
up. The filters degrade much faster and smokers face less risk for inhaling carcinogenic fibers
into their lungs. However, these cigarettes are limited in that they do not solve the problem of
toxic persistence or the leaching of chemicals into the environment. While Greenbutts promises
pure tobacco, their standards for purity may not mean that the tobacco does not carry trace
pesticides. In addition, Stanelco seems to be purely focused on filter composition. An alternative
to cellulose acetate filters is undoubtedly a step in the direction towards mitigating
environmental consequences of cigarettes, but it is not a perfect solution.
13
Creative Repurposing
Artists around the world have also addressed the problem of cigarette butts; many have
repurposed them into creative artwork. In Brazil, fashion designer Alexandra Guerrero makes
clothing out of discarded cigarettes as a sustainable and creative way to address cigarette waste
(Figure 2). Guerrero has collected around 5,000 cigarette butts to create 5 items of clothing. She
uses autoclaves to sterilize the cigarettes, washes them in a solvent, sterilizes them again, rinses
and dries them, and finally shreds the fibers. She dyes the fibers, separates them, and spins them
with sheep wool to create a durable garment. The final clothing is made of 10% cigarette fibers
and 90% sheep wool. Guerrero and her clothing company Mantis envision mass producing her
clothing line (Greenmuze 2009).
In a similar fashion, Flore, a 22-year-old student and president of a small environmental
group called Vents Solidaires, created a dress titled “Lulu” out of discarded cigarette butts in
Paris. She began her project out of frustration with the amount of cigarette butts littered in the
streets of Paris (Davies 2011).
Cigarette clothing has received mixed reactions – some people praise this creative
approach to litter while others are wary of the clothing’s cleanliness. But clothing is not the only
artistic response to cigarette waste. In Switzerland, street artist and smoker Jinks Kunst collected
20,394 cigarette filters to create a portrait of French singer Serge Gainsbourg. His project lasted
three years and culminated in a special 20th
anniversary tribute to the singer (Spooky 2011).
Similarly, British artist Damien Hirst created an art piece titled “The Abyss” with stainless steel,
glass, cigarettes, cigars, lipstick, and ash (CBS News Staff 2011; Artfact; Figure 3).
Figure 2. Fashion designer Alexandra Guerrero’s shirt made out of recycled cigarettes. Source: http://mantis-mantis.blogspot.com/
14
Figure 3. Damien Hirst’s “The Abyss” featuring cigarette butts. Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2008/09/16/celebrity-artist-damien-hirst-makes-record-70m-115875-
20738917/
Practical Solutions
Uses for cigarette litter go beyond aesthetics. Cigarette butts can be treated and
transformed chemically into other functional materials. In China, Zhao et al. found that soaking
cigarette butts in water would produce a solution that prevents N80 steel pipes from corroding
(Hager 2010). All cigarettes used in their research were collected from trash or the streets.
Cigarette butts were soaked in water, combined with a hydrochloric solution, and applied to N80
oil tube steel discs . Zhao et al. found that the cigarette solution acts as a cathodic and anodic
inhibitor that adsorbs onto the metal surface, slowing the rate of corrosion. The solution with 5%
cigarette inhibitors in 10% hydrochloric solution gave optimum preventative results – 94.6%
inhibition efficiency (Zhao et al. 2010). Zhao et al’s discovery not only repurposes cigarette litter
but also helps oil industries that use steel pipes.
In the United States, Ohioan inventor Blake Burich has also found a clever way to use
discarded cigarette butts. His idea is to convert them into adhesive material. His method involves
grinding the cigarettes, saturating them with a solvent, adding a petroleum liquid to the mixture,
and molding it into a semi-solid material. The material can then be transformed into useful
products, such as adhesives, sealers, or coating (Burich 2009).
Students at RMIT University in Australia have discovered a way to incorporate cigarette
waste into fired clay bricks. They first disinfected the cigarette butts in 105ºC heat for 24 hours
and then sealed them in plastic bags. They used a Hobart mechanical mixture to mix different
weights of cigarette butts with brown silt and clay-like sand for 5 minutes and packed them into
brick molds. They then dried the cigarette and sand mixtures at 105ºC for 24 hours, removed the
15
molds, and fired the mixtures in a 1050ºC furnace. The resulting bricks were considerably
different from standard bricks; they are more porous and less dense with reduced thermal
conductivity, compressive strength, and flexural strength. Only insignificant concentrations of
metal leachates remained in the bricks. The authors of this project predict that their bricks made
with cigarette butts can potentially replace standard bricks, except in situations where
construction requires stronger bricks or a specific architectural design (Kadir et al. 2010).
While all of these approaches to reducing cigarette litter are innovative, it may be
difficult to expand them globally. Fashion designer Alexandra Guerrero wants to mass produce
Mantis, but she may be only one of few designers who are willing to take the risk of making
cigarette clothing. RMIT University’s bricks made with cigarette litter have less strength and
needs to be tested over time for durability in buildings. Greenbutts will have to make successful
contracts with cigarette manufacturers to put their filters in the market. Whether these methods
can be regularly utilized in our society remains questionable.
Policies and Programs
Some of the creative, practical, and scientific approaches to cigarette litter that were
previously mentioned are not commonly used (at the time of this study); however, a policy-based
approach has been successfully implemented in a few cities. In this section, I discuss examples
of smoking policies and programs that currently exist or are being considered in a few cities
across the United States. I also discuss those that have failed to be passed. Furthermore, I
examine the possibility of collaborating with the tobacco industry and its motivations for
reducing cigarette litter.
16
Tax and Deposit Programs
Installing a citywide recycling program encompasses the creative and practical
approaches to cigarette butts while also generating a widespread awareness of cigarette litter.
The idea is simple – residents, smokers and non-smokers alike, would collect used cigarette butts
and turn them in for some sort of compensation. The used butts would then be utilized in creative
and practical ways, depending on how the city plans to recycle them. Ideally, such a program
would become part of a city’s routine and overall mindfulness towards littering cigarettes.
The city of San Francisco, CA implemented a cigarette recycling program in 2009,
despite Prop 26, which restricts California cities and municipalities from imposing “externality
offset” fees. Cigarette litter can be considered a negative externality since the prices for
cigarettes do not include disposal costs. To offset externalities, San Francisco passed a policy
that charges a $0.20 fee on each pack of cigarettes to cover the costs of tobacco product litter
(Schneider et al. 2011). One challenge facing city officials was calculating the exact costs of
litter abatement and the quantity of cigarette litter in San Francisco. For cost calculations, the
city first obtained from its departments the total direct operating costs in general litter
management, collection, and abatement. The total annual abatement cost for all types of litter
was $25 million. The city then performed Street Litter Audits (SLAs) from 2007 to 2009, and
found tobacco product litter to be 22.5% of all litter in San Francisco. Multiplying the percentage
of tobacco litter by the total annual litter abatement cost gave the total abatement cost for just
tobacco litter – about $5.6 million. The city added $1.4 million to cover the costs of
administration, which gave a final cost of $7 million. The city then used the 2007 California
Health Interview Survey results, which estimated the number of cigarettes smoked per day in
San Francisco to be 31.8 packs per capita. Considering that tourists and commuters do not buy
17
50% of their cigarettes in San Francisco, the city incorporated an 11% reduction in abatement
cost. The final total tobacco litter cost became about $6.5 million for the city of San Francisco
(Schneider et al. 2011).
Initially, the program faced numerous oppositions, notably by Philip Morris USA, a large
tobacco manufacturer (Hager 2010). In 2011, the city faced a lawsuit against Philip Morris USA
as well as local liquor stores and markets. Saker Kaleh vs. San Francisco ended with success for
the city and a continuation of their cigarette ordinance (Recycling News 2011).
Unfortunately, not all programs have been as successful. In 2001, Maine state
representative Joseph Brooks proposed a Returnable Tobacco Bill, which would require
consumers to pay a $1 deposit for each pack of cigarettes and later be refunded if they returned
the used butts (Philip Morris 2001). The collected butts would be sent to energy recovery
companies for incineration or landfills (Albert 2001). Brooks modeled the bill after the
returnable bottle and container bills, which had already been in place for years in Maine. He was
inspired to do something about the 2.3 billion cigarettes that Maine smokers consume every year,
and the litter that inevitably accumulates (Onion 2012). However, the Maine Bureau of Health
feared that children would collect the cigarettes and be repeatedly exposed to nicotine (Albert
2001). The Maine Grocers Association and Maine Chapter of the New England Convenience
Store Association also opposed Brooks’ bill because they were concerned about storeowners’
health consequences from the accumulation of cigarettes in stores. Brooks responded with an
addition to the bill that would outlaw anyone under the lawful smoking age from collecting used
butts. To avoid skin contact with cigarettes, collectors could use a plastic bag that came with the
cigarette pack (Onion 2012). Also, bottle redemption centers instead of stores would collect the
butts (Albert 2001). Brooks anticipated that this program would profit bottle redemption centers
18
and envisioned high school sports teams and bands doing “butt drives” to collect cigarettes.
Despite Brooks’ attempts to appease the bill’s opponents, he was quickly defeated and the
deposit system was never implemented. Maine governor Angus King also disagreed with Brooks
and preferred an increase in the cigarette tax over the Returnable Tobacco Bill (Onion 2012).
Policies in Consideration
Since the success of San Francisco’s cigarette tax and the failure of Maine’s deposit
program, other cigarette butt recycling programs have developed. In May of 2010, New York
Assemblyman Michael G. DenDekker proposed a bill for a cigarette butt recycling program,
which would require a 1-cent deposit per cigarette. The program would also create jobs for the
departments of environmental conservation and health.
In San Diego, California, stock trader Curtis Baffico has created a recycling system in
which he pays a “Butt Redemption Value” of $3 per pound of cigarettes that people collect.
Baffico raises the money on his website (Ripplelife.org) and redeems the cigarettes at monthly
collection events, the first of which was held at Pacific Beach in January of 2011. His system is
unique in that it does not require a tax fee or a deposit, unlike the programs suggested by
DenDekker or Brooks. Baffico specifically did not develop a deposit system because he felt that
smokers would feel justified in littering if they paid a deposit. The most difficult part of his
program is repurposing the cigarette butts. One of his ideas is to grind the cigarettes and add
them to concrete so that the butts would replace fibermesh, a material that prevents concrete
from cracking. The concrete would cover the butts and prevent their toxins from leaching
(Skenazy 2011).
19
The future of both DenDekker bill and Baffico’s program is uncertain since both are in
the early stages. DenDekker’s bill is still being developed and Baffico’s program only started in
2011. However, they are promising and have great potential for reducing cigarette litter in New
York and San Diego.
Other policy ideas have been suggested by advocates for litter-free cities. These include
labeling cigarette packs with “do not litter”, fining litterers, requiring filters that degrade faster,
banning disposable filters, and educating consumers about their responsibility to keep the
environment litter-free (Novotny et al. 2009).
Collaboration with Tobacco Industry
Not all litter reduction programs are led on such a small scale. Some programs have been
led by the tobacco industry. The industry has been aware of the cigarette litter problem since the
1970s and the greater stigma that litter adds to smoking. Cigarette companies fear that non-
smokers who are neutral about smoking will become less supportive of smokers because of
cigarette litter. In addition, laws that ban smoking have used the issue of litter to successfully
pass (Philip Morris 1997).
With the idea of increased taxes and more strict regulation looming over their heads,
tobacco industry works have partnered with Keep America Beautiful (KAB), an organization
dedicated to preventing litter and reducing waste. The industry’s program to reduce cigarette
litter aims to lower the stigma of smoking, prevent lawmakers from using cigarette litter as a
reason to establish further smoking bans, and remove the industry’s financial responsibility
towards cleaning up cigarette litter (Smith 2011). Their motivations behind reducing tobacco
waste are quite different from those that instigated citywide policies and programs.
20
Regardless of how different their motivations are, tobacco industries and city officials are
making progressive changes towards reduced cigarette litter.
Policies and local programs may be some of the easier ways to reduce cigarette litter.
They do not require years of testing the chemistry of cigarettes in laboratories and potentially
reduce much more cigarette litter than artistic works can. City policies also grab the attention of
local residents and can educate them about the environmental consequences of cigarette litter.
Local programs bring together communities in the effort to reduce tobacco waste.
Cigarette litter programs may be more successful if they consider collaborating with the
tobacco industry, which also strives to reduce cigarette waste.
Cigarette Butts at Pomona College
I have discussed why cigarette litter is a problem as well as approaches people all over
the world have taken to reduce it. This next section places the idea of reducing cigarette litter in
the context of a college campus.
College campuses accumulate a lot of cigarette litter, especially when 28.5% of college
students smoke in the United States (Rigotta et al. 2000). Cigarette clean-ups at San Diego State
University (SDSU) have collected close to 25,000 butts in just one hour (Sawdey et al. 2011). At
University of California San Diego (UCSD), 17 volunteers collected 6,525 cigarette butts in one
hour (Sawdey et al. 2011).
Factors that affect the patterns of cigarette litter on college campuses are unique to each
school. Therefore, we cannot simply implement the same policy or program that might work well
in a citywide context.
21
In fact, all the strategies that have been previously discussed cannot be immediately
applied to every community. Before applying general methods for reducing cigarette litter, we
must first observe the communities’ pattern of cigarette disposal and the unique factors that
affect their littering. This contextualizes the idea of litter-reducing methods to a specific
environment and informs decision makers’ actions to reduce litter specifically in their
community.
In this case study, I examine cigarette litter at Pomona College, a small liberal arts
college in southern California. Pomona College is part of a consortium of five Claremont
Colleges (5Cs) in Claremont, California. Despite its small size, about 34% of their students
smoke regularly, which is slightly higher than the national average.
I first examine Pomona College’s patterns of cigarette disposal – the locations and counts
of butts. Then I discuss factors that influence these trends from a sociological, psychological, and
space-based perspective. Finally, using these patterns and factors, I make recommendations for
what the college can do to reduce cigarette waste on campus.
In order to examine patterns of cigarette disposal, I spent a few weeks walking around
campus and counting every visible cigarette butt I spotted on the ground. I mapped the number
of cigarettes I found according to buildings or walkways and sidewalks.
The following section describes my methodology in counting and mapping – “rules” I
established in counting, areas examined, and possible limitations.
Methodology
I counted butts around 36 buildings at Pomona College, including nearby walkways
(Figure 4). I did not count any cigarettes inside the buildings. I counted cigarettes that were
22
clearly visible from concrete or dirt walkways and other non-grassy pathways. For areas equally
shared by two buildings (i.e. the space between Pomona Hall and Sontag Hall), I divided the
count of that area between the two buildings.
I did a separate count of cigarettes on 42 sidewalk segments, which I distinguished from
walkways as raised pathways next to roads (Figure 5). The only exceptions are Marston Quad
and the walkway between Walker and Clark V leading to Bixby Plaza, both of which do not fit
the designated characteristics of sidewalks. I did not incorporate their number of cigarettes in the
count of nearby buildings because they are exceptionally large and popular walkways. Since the
weather or leaf-blowers could have swept cigarettes to the side, I counted butts on the edges of
sidewalks as well.
Due to several factors, my final count is a very rough estimate of the actual number of
littered cigarettes on campus. However, I took several steps to acquire more accuracy in count.
Weather, such as rain and wind, moves discarded cigarettes around, which means that the
location of butts I recorded is not necessarily where they were initially discarded. In addition,
smokers might be less likely to go outside to smoke during rainy weather. Thus, I did not count
during rainy days and tried to count at least two days after a rainy day. There were no severe
winds during the period of counting, so I do not perceive them to have a significant effect.
At the time of this study, large areas of the campus were off-limits due to construction.
Inaccessible areas are behind Mudd-Blaisdell and Frank, in front of Harwood, between Harwood
and Mudd-Blaisdell, behind Bridges Auditorium, and behind Oldenborg. Students and staff, who
would have discarded their cigarettes in these areas, throw them away elsewhere. Thus, the
concentrated areas on my map may not appear in the same spots in other years. In addition,
construction workers who smoke and litter their cigarettes cause an increase in the overall
23
cigarette count. I found around 100 discarded cigarette butts in the construction trailers behind
Mudd-Blaisdell, which suggests that construction workers may contribute a large portion to the
overall cigarette litter on campus. I did not include this number in the map counts because it
came from an external source and not necessarily from students and staff at Pomona. I avoided
all other construction areas when counting.
The campus’s grounds department affects the location and visibility of cigarette litter.
The department uses a leaf blower to clear pathways of leaves and litter on Mondays (at the time
of this study). Cigarettes discarded in the middle of pathways are blown to the side where they
are easily covered and hidden by mulch. I mostly counted visible litter towards the end of the
week so that I could count the maximum number of cigarettes.
Finally, to minimize double-counting, I counted around entire buildings and sidewalks at
a time. While counting, I noted areas around buildings that accumulated a significantly large
number of cigarettes. The cigarettes in these concentrated spots contribute at least 40% to the
overall building’s count.
In the next few sections, I describe the results of my map – patterns of buildings,
sidewalks, and concentrated areas – as well as possible factors that explain these trends.
26
Figure 4. Map of visible cigarette litter surrounding buildings at Pomona College.
27
Figure 5. Map of visible cigarette litter on sidewalks at Pomona College.
28
Results and Discussion
Cigarette Litter Around Buildings. The map of cigarette counts around buildings shows
that most of the buildings at Pomona College have lower cigarette counts (Figure 4). Over half of
the buildings have 20 or fewer cigarettes discarded around them while only eight buildings have
60 or higher (Table 1); the normal distribution, or bell curve, is positively skewed. Various
factors account for the exceptionally high cigarette counts in these five buildings.
High Litter Buildings. Three of these buildings are the college’s dining halls – Frary,
Oldenborg, and Frank. Each dining hall has over 80 cigarette butts; their average of 95 butts
ranks the highest among all types of buildings (Table 2). The high amounts of litter at dining
halls may be explained in one way by their function as a space for socializing. Considering that
98% of Pomona students live on campus, most of the student population eat at the dining halls
regularly and often socialize as they eat meals together. The dining halls also hold events for
students, which leads to more socializing. The degree of socializing may be connected to social
smoking; studies show that 51% of current college students who smoke are social smokers,
defined as mainly smoking in social situations (Moran et al. 2004). Thus, some students who
behave as social smokers may smoke before and after meals as they socialize with their peers
near the dining halls.
Frary especially provides a large space for socializing because it is larger and therefore
attracts a larger population of students. It is also directly connected to Bixby Plaza, which
provides a large space and many benches for smokers to sit and socialize. In fact, Bixby Plaza is
one of the concentrated areas of cigarette butts. In addition, the college has special late night
snacks during the week; thus, students eat and socialize at Frary after regular meal times.
Oldenborg also has a high degree of socializing especially because of their language tables where
29
students sit and socialize in different languages with their peers. This socializing may extend to
before and after meals in front of Oldenborg (Figure 8).
While Frank dining hall also has a high degree of socializing, especially from first-year
sponsor groups (residence hall groups organized by the college), the locations of cigarette butts
at Frank indicate that another factor may influence its high count. I counted 146 butts at Frank
(Table 1), but almost all of them were found in isolated nooks in front and behind of the
building; students do not normally travel through these areas. It is very likely that these cigarettes
came from dining hall staff who spend the most time in this type of building. Thus, the high
cigarette count at Frank, along with the other two dining halls, may also be attributed to the type
of people who spend the most time there – staff. They too may be socializing or relaxing during
work breaks.
It is also important to note that general smoking habits and effects of cigarettes on
smokers affects the higher counts around dining halls. The cigarette butts may be discarded by
smokers who enjoy relaxing after meals with a cigarette. In fact, the post-meal cigarette is
regarded as one of best cigarettes of the day by many smokers (Laurier et al. 2000).
In addition, all three dining halls are one of the few buildings on campus that attract
people who are not only from Pomona students. The Claremont Consortium allows students to
eat at dining halls at the other campuses, which means that 5C students come to eat, socialize, or
relax with a cigarette after a meal at the dining halls. Oldenborg especially attracts a wider pool
of students because language classes at the 5Cs require a minimum number of visits to the
language tables at Oldenborg’s dining hall. A larger pool, or variety, of students may mean
higher rates of smoking and consequently more cigarette litter around dining halls.
30
Another building that has over 80 counts of cigarette litter is Pomona Hall, a residence
hall on the north side of campus. Overall, residence halls, both on north and south campus, have
the 2nd
highest average cigarette count (Table 2).
One factor that may explain the higher count around residence halls is students’
ownership of space around them. People smoke in areas where they feel most comfortable,
which is helped by close proximity to homes. In the college setting, this may mean that students
smoke near their rooms in the residence halls.
Another factor is again, the degree of socializing. Residence halls often throw events and
students hold informal parties in their suites or rooms.
It is important to note, however, that the north campus residence halls have a higher
count than those on south campus – almost 30% more (Table 2). At Pomona College, students in
their first or second year (underclassmen) generally live on south campus while students in their
third or fourth year (upperclassmen) live on north campus. This could mean that cigarette counts
are affected by the age of students. Studies show that among college-aged smokers, 28% began
smoking regularly at age 19 or older, which is typically during the first year of college (Wechsler
et al. 1998). In addition, 39.4% of smokers increase their level of smoking in college (Sawdey et
al. 2011). Pomona students who smoke may have started smoking during their first year and
gradually increased their level of smoking, which explains the greater amount of cigarette litter
in north campus dorms.
31
Figure 8. Sixteen discarded cigarette butts on the ground in front of Oldenborg.
Low Litter Buildings. Other factors account for exceptionally low counts of cigarette litter
around certain buildings. Academic buildings overall have the lowest average of butts – only
about 18 (Table 2). Professors and students seem to be spending the most time at academic
buildings but the smoking frequency appears to be low, as reflected in the lower counts of
cigarette litter.
Smoking prevalence generally decreases as level of education increases (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention 2010), so fewer professors may be smoking. In addition,
although students attend classes in these academic buildings regularly, they may not smoke
around them because of a lack of ownership of the space. They may associate academic
32
buildings with work and not a place to call “home” or a space where they can comfortably relax
and smoke. Students also tend not to socialize as much near academic buildings, which may also
explain the lower counts of cigarette litter around this type of building.
Interestingly, although the overall count is low, science/math buildings have a
significantly lower average count than humanities buildings. In fact, the humanities buildings
have twice the amount of cigarette litter as science/math buildings.
There are several factors that could have led to this pattern. Many science/math students
are on an academic track towards medical school, so they may be more conscious of the medical
consequences of smoking. Consequently, fewer science/math students may smoke and fewer
cigarettes are being discarded around their buildings. Humanities subjects may attract students
who are more likely to engage in socially deviant behaviors, like smoking (Markle and Troyer
1979), leading to greater numbers of cigarette waste around humanities buildings. Humanities
students in general smoke more than students who are pursuing a more scientific academic track
(Peters 1967).
Concentrated Areas. While building counts overall exhibit interesting trends, it is worth
noting the interesting patterns and possible causes among the thirteen concentrated areas of
cigarettes. As a reminder, the number of cigarettes in these areas contributes at least 40% to the
overall building’s count.
Many of these concentrated areas are either isolated or not easily noticeable in public
space. More specifically, the areas behind Bridges Auditorium and in front of Frank Dining Hall
are isolated from students, indicating that staff workers are most likely contributing the litter
count in these areas. Staff workers may be going to these less visible areas due to an obligation
to maintain a professional image in the workplace or social stigma (Kaufman et al. 2010).
33
Social stigma of smoking may explain why so many of the concentrated areas are more
isolated. Studies show that a stigma around smoking definitely exists. One study asked
participants, who were mostly college students, to share their first impressions of smokers;
smokers were viewed as less calm, considerate, disciplined, honest, imaginative, mature, and
well-mannered (Dermer and Jacobsen 1986). In addition, over 25% of smokers at the Claremont
Colleges have felt disrespected by non-smokers who reacted negatively to their smoking (Rojas
2012). And almost 60% of non-smokers said that their opinion of someone negatively changed if
he or she was a smoker (Rojas 2012). Thus, smokers at Pomona College are very likely to
experience a social stigma and consequently smoke in places where they can avoid these
negative reactions.
Amenities in public space also seem to contribute to the concentrations of cigarettes in
certain areas. Many of these areas, such as the area in front of Smiley or in front of Pomona Hall,
provide benches or tables for smokers to sit at. These amenities provide more comfortable public
space for smokers, which may lead to higher frequency of smoking and larger amounts of litter
in these areas.
In addition, some of these concentrated areas exist near places of socializing. Smith
Campus Center’s cigarette count is largely contributed by the cigarettes found at Dom’s Lounge,
which serves as a place for parties and other events. At parties, students can more easily partake
in socially deviant behaviors. Parties also involve a lot of alcohol use. Social smoking often goes
hand in hand with alcohol use and happens more frequently at social events (Rigotta et al. 2000),
which may explain the high cigarette concentration at Dom’s Lounge. Higher frequencies of
socializing, and consequently social smoking, may contribute to the larger amounts of cigarette
litter in these concentrated area.
34
Building Conclusions. Overall, the patterns of cigarette litter around buildings indicates
that more cigarette litter is found near places where there is a higher frequency of socializing, a
greater variety of people, more staff and older students, greater ownership of space, more
amenities like benches, greater acceptability of socially deviant behaviors and less visibility or
experience of social stigma with smoking.
Cigarette Litter on Sidewalks. The map of sidewalks shows much less variability than
that of buildings. Generally, most of the sidewalk segments have very low counts of cigarette
butts; in fact, almost 70% of the segments have less than ten butts.
The sidewalks with exceptionally high counts of cigarettes appear in Marston Quad and
around Smith Campus Center. These sidewalks are located at the central core of campus where
there is high traffic from students going to class and back to their rooms. Additionally, Smith
Campus Center is the main hub of the college; it is a resource for food, career advice, meetings,
studying, mail, and more. Thus, people are constantly traveling through these sidewalks.
Other sidewalks with higher counts appear near the border of campus, like the sidewalk
behind Mason. This is probably best explained by the fact that these sidewalk segments are likely
to be shared by people from other campuses or residents from the city of Claremont.
Sidewalks with benches located nearby also have higher counts of butts. Most of the
cigarettes found at Marston Quad were underneath its benches.
The patterns of cigarette litter on sidewalks show that more cigarettes are discarded in
high traffic areas used by a greater variety of people and with more benches.
Overall, the factors that affect counts and locations of cigarette litter are the type of
people using that space, ownership of space, public furniture, degree of socializing, intensity of
traffic, smokers’ daily habits, variety of users, and social perception of smoking.
35
Ineffectiveness of Ashtrays. The implications of these findings are significant in forming
strategies to reduce cigarette litter at Pomona College. The college has not completely ignored
the problem of cigarette litter; there are ashtrays present all throughout the campus. However,
these ashtrays are not as effective as they can be. By transforming their design and placement,
the college may decrease its cigarette litter dramatically.
While counting cigarette butts, I often found more butts on the ground around an ashtray
rather than in the ashtray. For example, at Crookshanks, I found 51 butts on the ground but only
1 in an ashtray a few feet away. Similarly, I found around 50 butts in the courtyard near Lawry
but zero in the ashtray in front of Walton Commons. A few exceptions include the ashtray at the
southwest corner of SCC, which had 8 cigarettes compared to 8 in the surrounding area, and at
Pearsons, which had 3 in the ashtray and 1 on the ground.
Overall, Pomona’s ashtrays are not as effective as they could be, possibly because of their
design and location. Ashtrays at Pomona are either small metal urns or larger concrete ones
(Figure 6). Cigarette butts are exposed to open air in these uncovered receptacles. The urns are
plain and blend in with the surroundings. They are sometimes located near a trash can, but not
always.
The placement of ashtrays at Pomona also adds to their ineffectiveness. Pomona’s butt
receptacles have an open top, which becomes filled with rusty water after rainfall. Thus, they are
usually placed under awnings, close to buildings. However, their location is confusing and
impractical when it comes to the campus’s smoking policy. The college prohibits smoking inside
administrative and academic buildings, as well as residence halls. Additionally, they prohibit
smoking in an outdoor area if the secondhand smoke can easily drift into a non-smoking area
(Pomona College 2011). However, most of Pomona’s ashtrays are located within a couple feet of
36
a building’s entrance. This means that if a smoker were to carry his or her cigarette butt to the
appropriate ashtray, the secondhand smoke would most likely enter the building. It would be
more convenient and practical for smokers to discard their cigarettes on the ground far away
from buildings than to walk up to the entrance and risk exposing people inside the building to
secondhand smoke. Consequently, cigarette butts are constantly discarded on the ground instead
of appropriate ashtrays.
On the other hand, Pitzer College uses butt receptacles that have three benefits that our
Pomona ashtrays do not have. Pitzer’s butt receptacles are uniquely designed so that they enclose
cigarette butts. They have a round bottom and restricted openings so that cigarette butts are not
exposed to open air and fumes are enclosed (Figure 7). Their receptacles come from the
company Global Industrial, which sells several designs of “Butt-tainers” that can hold up to
14,000 butts (Global Industrial). Unlike Pomona’s urns, this model of outdoor ashtray reduces
fire risk, keeps out rain and wind, and fights odors (Global Industrial). They can be placed on
walkways far away from buildings, making it convenient for smokers to properly discard their
cigarettes without the risk of violating campus policy. Additionally, they reduce students’
exposure to secondhand smoke and cigarette odor because the fumes are enclosed. The
concealed cigarette litter may also cause an overall decrease in littering since studies have shown
that people are more likely to litter if there is litter around them (Cialdini et al. 1990).
Both Pomona and Pitzer’s butt receptacles would be improved, however, by decoration.
A study done at East Carolina University confirms that the presence of ashtrays decreases
cigarette litter but also suggests that decorated ashtrays causes an even larger decrease (Cope
1993).
37
Recommendations. I recommend that Pomona switch their urns to these “Butt-tainers”
and allow students to decorate them. I also recommend that Pomona conduct future maps of
cigarette litter on campus to find where concentrated areas are consistently appearing each year.
With this information, they can place butt receptacles in spots where they will be the most
effective and utilized. I also recommend that the college research potential recycling programs or
other companies to which they can donate collected cigarette butts from the “Butt-tainers”.
Figure 6. Metal and Concrete Urns at Pomona College.
38
Figure 7. Cigarette Butt Receptacles at Pitzer College.
Conclusion
Literature has provided chemistry-based evidence for the slow degradability of cigarette
filters and the harmful presence of their chemicals in the environment. Cigarette filters take 10 to
15 years to degrade and meanwhile the cigarettes leach chemicals that have toxic effects on
marine life. Alternative filters that degrade much faster have been created and scientists have
developed ways to chemically manipulate filters to enhance their degradation rate, but these
scientific solutions are still being tested and not commonly utilized by cigarette manufacturers.
Artists have incorporated cigarette litter into their artwork, but using cigarettes as a medium does
not have a great enough reducing effect. The most realistic approach, at the time of this study, is
39
policy-based; several cities have already implemented tax policies or recycling programs to
reduce cigarette litter in their communities.
However, a case study of Pomona College shows that it is important to contextualize
litter reduction. At Pomona College, a smoking policy is already being implemented and yet I
counted 1,363 butts on its campus over several weeks. Higher amounts of cigarette litter appear
in areas with higher traffic, more socializing, visits by a greater variety of people, more staff and
older students, more public furniture, greater ownership of space, and less experience with social
stigma. These findings show that the college’s policy or installment of ashtrays is not doing
enough to reduce cigarette litter; instead, they must redesign and relocate their butt receptacles
with consideration of the patterns of high cigarette counts listed above.
I recommend that the college curb their cigarette litter by installing cigarette butt
receptacles with closed tops, similar to Pitzer College’s receptacles. I also suggest that Pomona
College donate the discarded cigarette butts to be recycled or repurposed, similar to the donation
that fashion designer Guerrero makes to plant pest control companies to be tested as insecticides.
The college can also find cigarette recycling programs such as the one started by Baffico in San
Diego, California.
At Pomona College and the United States overall, we must take action with cigarette
litter. The United States has made significant progress in reducing waste through recycling
programs. In many ways, we have recognized that we can relieve the burden of growing waste
by taking action. Our society has adopted small but meaningful habits of recycling and reusing
glass, plastics, and paper among many other materials.
We can do the same with cigarette litter, which contains plastics and other toxic
chemicals. Recycling cigarette butts can become part of our society’s daily routine, just as we
40
recycle other products. Many strategies exist to reduce cigarette litter. Although some of them
are underdeveloped, they all have great potential for drastically decreasing our tobacco waste.
This is a call to all smokers and non-smokers: let us take responsibility for our trash. We
must acknowledge the growing amounts of litter, including cigarettes. Let us be mindful of our
planet’s limitations; our giant piles of waste, if they do not degrade quickly enough, will have
severe consequences for our world.
41
Appendix
Table 1. Cigarette Counts for Buildings
Building Name Number of Discarded
Cigarettes
ITS 0
Mudd, Millikan, Andrew 2
Seaver Theatre 2
Carnegie 3
Bridges Hall of Music 3
South Parking Garage 3
Alexander 4
Walton Commons 5
Seaver Biology 6
Wig 6
Lincoln Edmunds 8
Rains Center 10
Sumner 12
Thatcher 13
Walker 14
Harwood 14
Museum of Art, Rembrandt 16
Lyon 16
Hahn 17
Pearsons 22
Seaver North & South 25
Frary 26
Crookshank 34
Smiley 38
Clark I 48
Clark V 50
Lawry 50
Mason 51
Sontag 66
Clark III, Norton 66
SCC 73
Mudd-Blaisdell 77
Oldenborg 114
Pomona Hall 136
Frank 146
Bridges Auditorium 187
TOTAL 1363
42
Table 2. Average Cigarette Counts for Types of Buildings
Building Type Average Number of Discarded Cigarettes
Academic Buildingsa 17.90909091
Social Buildingsb 33.22222222
South Campus Residence Hallsc 45.4
North Campus Residence Hallsd 58.5
Dining Hallse 95.33333333
aSeaver Biology, Seaver North and South, Mudd, Millikan, Andrew, Lincoln Edmunds, Mason, Crookshank,
Pearsons, Hahn, Carnegie, Thatcher, Museum of Art, Rembrandt. bWalton Commons, Alexander, Smith Campus
Center, Rains Center, Bridges Auditorium, Bridges Hall of Music, Sumner, Seaver Theatre, South Parking Garage. cWig, Harwood, Lyon, Mudd-Blaisdell, Oldenborg.
dWalker, Clark V, Clark I, Clark III, Norton, Lawry, Sontag,
Pomona Hall, Smiley. eFrary, Frank, Oldenborg.
43
Acknowledgements
I would first like to thank my reader Professor Colin Beck for his unending support and
thorough feedback. I would also like to thank Professor Rick Hazlett for helping me brainstorm
ways to address the topic of cigarette litter. Thank you to Professor Char Miller for continually
encouraging me, as well as all the other Environmental Analysis seniors, to persevere through
our research. Thank you to the Downey Fresh Air Coalition for introducing me to the issue of
cigarette butts. Special thanks to Catherine Jun of the coalition for mentoring me and inspiring
me to write about this topic. Thank you to my friends and family for encouraging me, praying for
me, and simply expressing interest in my thesis. And lastly, thank you God for blessing me with
an amazing education and an incredible community.
44
Works Cited
Albert, Judy P. 2001. "Changes Considered For Returnable Butts Bill." Retrieved December 6,
2011
(http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/igl60d00/pdf;jsessionid=20A883EC86DD6CE61C39D
E69BF749C81.tobacco03).
Artfact. "Damien Hirst, b. 1965 The Abyss stainless steel, glass, cigarettes, cigars, lipsticks and
ash." Retrieved December 6, 2011 (http://www.artfact.com/auction-lot/damien-hirst-,-b.-
1965-the-abyss-stainless-1-c-ngpgbfi076).
Burich, Blake. 2009. "Process and Method For Recycling Cigarette Butts." Patentdocs. Retrieved
December 6, 2011 (http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090113789).
Business Wire. 2005. "Stanelco PLC Appoints Rothschild for Sale of Stanelco's Filter
Technology." Business Wire, November 11. Retrieved December 6, 2011
(http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20051110005872/en/Stanelco-PLC-Appoints-
Rothschild-Sale-Stanelcos-Filter).
CBS News Staff. 2011. "Pieces of Damien Hirst." CBS News. Retrieved December 6, 2011
(http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-3445_162-4458379-6.html).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010. "Vital Signs: Current Cigarette Smoking
Among Adults Aged > 18 Years --- United States, 2009." Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report 59:1135-1140.
Cialdini, Robert B., Raymond R. Reno, and Carl A. Kallgren. 1990. "A Focus Theory of
Normative Conduct: Recycling the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public
Places." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58:1015-1026.
Clark, T.J. and J.E. Bunch. 1996. "Quantitative Determination of Phenold in Mainstream Smoke
with Solid-Phase Microextraction-Gas Chromatographic-Selected Ion Monitoring Mass
Spectrometry." Journal of Chromatographic Science 34:272-275.
Cope, J.G. 1993. "Behavioral Strategies to Reduce Cigarette Litter." Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality 8:607.
Davies, Alex. 2011. "A 22 Year Rids Paris of Cigarette Butts By Hand, Makes a Dress, and
Saves the Rainforest." Treehugger, May 13. Retrieved December 6, 2011
(http://www.treehugger.com/culture/a-22-year-rids-paris-of-cigarette-butts-by-hand-
makes-a-dress-and-saves-the-rainforest.html).
Davis, Del. 1999. Tobacco: Production, Chemistry and Technology. Oxford, UK: Wiley-
Blackwell.
45
Dermer, M.L. and E. Jacobsen. 1986. "Some Potential Negative Consequences of Cigarette
Smoking: Marketing Research in Reverse." Journal of Applied Social Psychology
16:702-725.
Edgar, Kevin J., Charles M. Buchanan, John S. Debenham, Paul A. Rundquist, Brian D. Seiler,
Michael C. Shelton, and Debra Tindall. 2001. "Advances in Cellulose Ester Performance
and Application." Progress in Polymer Science 26:1605-1688.
ENN. 2005. "Starch-Based Cigarette Filter Can Reduce Environmental Impact." Environmental
News Network, October 3. Retrieved December 6, 2011
(http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/16614).
Frank, R., H.E. Braun, P. Suda, B.D. Ripley, B.S. Clegg, R.P. Beyaert, and B.F. Zilkey. 1987.
"Pesticide Residues and Metal Contents in Flue-Cured Tobacco and Tobacco Soils of
Southern Ontario, Canada." Tobacco Science 21:40-45.
Global Industrial. "Outdoor Ashtrays & Cigarette Disposal at GLOBALindustrial.com.”
Retrieved December 6, 2011 (http://www.globalindustrial.com/c/janitorial-
maintenance/outdoor-ashtrays/free-standing).
Greenbutts LLC. 2011. "Greenbutts: Biodegradable Plantable Cigarette Filters in San Diego
California.” Retrieved December 6, 2011 (http://www.green-butts.com/).
Greenmuze. 2009. "Cigarette Butt Haute Couture." GreenMuze. Retrieved December 6, 2011
(http://www.greenmuze.com/waste/recycling/708-cigarette-butt-haute-couture.html).
Hager, Emily B. 2010. "A Call to Recycle Cigarette Butts." New York Times, May 25. Retrieved
December 6, 2011 (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/a-call-to-recycle-
cigarette-butts).
Harris, B. 2011. "The Intractable Cigarette 'Filter Problem'." Tobacco Control 20:10.
Haynes, Stephen K., Steven A. Wilson, and David V. Strickler. 1991. "Study of the
Environmental Degradation of Cigarette Filters: a Simulation of the Roadside or Parking
Lot Environment." Eastman Chemical Company. Retrieved December 6, 2011
(http://www.acetateweb.com/pdf/EnvironmentalDegradationOfCigaretteFilters.pdf).
Iskander, F.Y. 1985. "Determination of Trace Elements in Cigarette Filter Before and After
Smoking." Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 91:191-196.
Iskander, F.Y., D.E. Klein, and T.L. Bauer. 1986. "Determination of Trace and Minor Elements
in Cigarette Paper By Neutron Activation Analysis." TAPPI Journal 69:134-135.
Kadir, Aeslina Abdul, Abbas Mohajerani, Felicity Roddick, and John Buckeridge. 2010.
"Density, Strength, Thermal Conductivity and Leachate Characteristics of Light-Weight
46
Fired Clay Bricks Incorporating Cigarette Butts." International Journal of Environmental
Engineering 2:4.
Kaufman, P., K. Griffin, J. Cohen, N. Perkins, and R. Ferrence. 2010. "Smoking in Urban
Outdoor Public Places: Behaviour, Experiences, and Implications for Public Health."
Health Place 16:961-968.
Keep America Beautiful MSW Consultants. 2009. "National Visible Litter Survey and Litter
Cost Study." Retrieved December 6, 2011
(http://www.kab.org/site/DocServer/Final_KAB_Report_9-18-09.pdf?docID=4561).
Kubo, K. and T. Chishiro. 2008. "Six-Year Review of Cigarette Ingestion in Children - Gastric
Lavage Versus Medical Observation." Chudoku Kenkyu 23: 115-22.
Laurier, Eric, Linda McKie, and Norma Goodwin. 2000. "Daily and Lifecourse Contexts of
Smoking." Sociology of Health & Illness 22:289-309.
Markle, Gerald E. and Ronald J. Troyer. 1979. "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes: Cigarette Smoking as
Deviant Behavior." Social Problems 26:611-625.
McGee, D., T. Brabson, and J. McCarthy. 1996. "Four-year Review of Cigarette Ingestions in
Children." Journal of Emergency Medicine 14:275.
Micevska, T., M. St. J. Warne, F. Pablo, and R. Patra. 2006. "Variation In, and Causes of,
Toxicity of Cigarette Butts to a Cladoceran and Microtox." Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology 50:205.
Moerman, J.W. and G.E. Potts. 2011. "Analysis of Metals Leached From Smoked Cigarette
Litter." Tobacco Control 20:30-35.
Moran, Susan, Henry Weschler, and Nancy A. Rigotti. 2004. "Social Smoking Among US
College Students." Pediatrics 114:1028-1034.
Novotny Thomas E., Zhao Feng. 1999. "Consumption and Production Waste: Another
Externality of Tobacco Use." Tobacco Control 8:75-80.
Novotny, Thomas E., Kristen Lum, Elizabeth Smith, Vivian Wang, and Richard Barnes. 2009.
"Cigarette Butts and the Case for an Environmental Policy on Hazardous Cigarette
Waste." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 6:1691-
1705.
Onion, Amanda. 2012. "Maine Proposes Cigarette Butt Redemptions." ABC News, February 23.
Retrieved December 6, 2011
(http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94011&page=1#.Tt8Gu2PNlGV).
47
Owens, W.F. 1978. "Effect on Cigarette Paper on Smoke Yield and Composition." Recent
Advances in Tobacco Science 4:3-24.
Peters, J.M. 1967. "Association of Smoking with Certain Descriptive Variables in a College-Age
Group." The Journal of the American College Health Association 16:165.
Philip Morris. 1997. "Responsible Smoking: Litter Recommendations." Philip Morris Companies
INC. Retrieved December 6, 2011 (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oid40b00/pdf).
Philip Morris. 2001. "FYI." Philip Morris Companies INC. Retrieved December 6, 2011
(http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zjk48c00/pdf).
Platt, David K. 2006. Biodegradable Polymers: Market Report. UK: Smithers Rapa Limited.
Pomona College. 2011. "Residence Hall Regulations and Procedures." Retrieved December 6,
2011 (http://www.pomona.edu/life-on-campus/residential-life/residence-halls-
policies.pdf).
Puls, Juergen, Steven A. Wilson, and Dirk Hölter. 2011. "Degradation of Cellulose Acetate-
Based Materials: A Review." Journal of Polymers and the Environment 19:152.
Recycling News. 2011. "Aug 5 - SF Cigarette Ordinance Wins in Court Against Big Tobacco."
Californians Against Waste, August 5. Retrieved December 6, 2011
(http://www.cawrecycles.org/whats_new/recycling_news/aug5_sfcigfee_winsincourt).
Rigotti, N.A., J.E. Lee, and H. Wechsler. 2000. "US College Students' Use of Tobacco Products:
Results of a National Survey." JAMA 284:699-705.
Rojas, Luca. 2012. "On Cigarettes and the 5Cs." The Student Life. Retrieved December 6, 2011
(http://tsl.pomona.edu/articles/2011/4/13/lifeandstyle/120-on-cigarettes-and-the-5cs).
Sawdey, Michael, Ryan P. Lindsay, and Thomas E. Novotny. 2011. "Smoke-Free College
Campuses: No Ifs, Ands or Toxic Butts." Tobacco Control 20:21-24.
Schneider, J. E., N. Andrew Peterson, Noemi Kiss, Omar Ebeid, and Alexis S. Doyle. 2011.
"Tobacco Litter Costs and Public Policy: a Framework and Methodology for Considering
the Use of Fees to Offset Abatement Costs." Tobacco Control 20:36.
Skenazy, Matt. 2011. "Can Cigarette Butts Be Recycled?" Miller-McCune, June 30. Retrieved
December 6, 2011 (http://www.miller-mccune.com/environment/can-cigarette-butts-be-
recycled-32091/).
Slaughter, Elli, Richard M. Gersberg, Kayo Watanabe, John Rudolph, Chris Stransky, and
Thomas E. Novotny. 2011. "Toxicity of Cigarette Butts, and their Chemical Components,
to Marine and Freshwater Fish." Tobacco Control 20:25-29.
48
Smith, E. A. 2011. "Covering their Butts: Responses to the Cigarette Litter Problem." Tobacco
Control 20:100.
Smith, E.A. 2011. "Whose Butt is it? Tobacco Industry Research about Smokers and Cigarette
Butt Waste." Tobacco Control 20:2.
Spooky. 2011. "Swiss Artist Creates Realistic Portrait from 20,000 Cigarette Filters." Oddity
Central. Retrieved December 6, 2011 (http://www.odditycentral.com/news/swiss-artist-
creates-realistic-portrait-from-20000-cigarette-filters.html).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1989. "Reducing the Health Consequences of
Smoking: 25 Years of Progress." Rockville, MD: Public Health Service, Centers for
Disease Control, Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on
Smoking and Health.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2003. "Pesticides on Tobacco." United States General
Accounting Office. Retrieved December 6, 2011
(http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03485.pdf).
Wechsler, Henry, Nancy A. Rigotti, Jeana Gledhill-Hoyt, and Hang Lee. 1998. "Increased Levels
of Cigarette Use Among College Students." JAMA 280:1673-1678.
Zhao, Jun, Ningsheng Zhang, Chengtun Qu, Xinmin Wu, Juantao Zhang, and Xiang Zhang.
2010. "Cigarette Butts and their Application in Corrosion Inhibition for N80 Steel at
90°C in a Hydrochloric Acid Solution." Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
49:3986-3991.
